As a long time audiophile I'm finally able to bi-amp my setup. I'm using two identical amps in a vertical bi-amp configuration.
Now me not fully understanding all of the ins/outs of internal speaker crossovers and what not. I've read quite a few people tell me that bi-amping like I'm doing whether it's vertical or horizontal bi-amping is a waste since there's really not a improvement because of how speaker manufacturers design the internal crossovers.
Can anyone explain to a third grader how it's beneficial or if the naysayers are correct in the statement?
I experimented with bi-amping Magnapan 1'6's with two Arcam Alpha 10's. I really couldn't hear a difference. I went the next step and added a Bryston 10B active crossover removing the passive crossovers with a custom speaker terminal. Huge difference in everything for the better.
FWIW - Maggies are known for their simple and somewhat cheap crossover components, so as others have said, the conversion to active might not be as simple or as fruitful in other systems.
Yes. I have XLR Y-cable splitters. It comes out of my preamp splits the channel and then each of those goes to a channel on the amp.
My preamp (Marantz 8805A) has a bi-amp mode in the setup menu that allows me to use another channel for bi-amping. They claim setting it up this way and I'll quote from their explanation:
FROM MARANTZ
"This connection enables back EMF (power returned without being output) from the woofer to flow into the tweeter without affecting the sound quality, producing a higher sound quality."
But for some reason unknown to me when I use this method of connecting my XLR cables and run a level test in the setup menu. When the left speaker is putting out a test tone I'm getting both main speakers playing at the same time the high frequencies and when I switch to the right speaker I get both the main speakers low frequencies playing at the same time. Not sure if Marantz implemented something wrong here or not but I don't understand it all. So I connected back the XLR splitters. 🤷🏻♂️
I have two NAD M23 amps and speakers are Paradigm Founders 100F.
I am using them in a vertical bi-amp configuration.
I have four subwoofers handling the very low end. So the amplifier shouldn't be stressing out in any way. Even when I had just the one M23 amp connected using both speakers it sounded phenomenal. That's when I decided I wanted two. I loved it!
The amps can be bridged but I felt this could degrade the quality of the amp and chose the buying of two amps instead kind of like a monoblock setup. I've usually used monoblock amps for my system but NAD doesn't make a monoblock amp in this M23, even though it can be bridged I just felt bridging could degrade the quality l heard when connected in two channel.
I've never tried bridging these amps but based upon Audioholics testing said it did kind of decrease the quality over running two channel mode.
I'm just trying to learn more and appreciate the feedback knowledge!
If you have a 3 or more way where only fairly deep bass can be isolated to one amp, maybe. I think you would need to be pushing your system hard for it to matter.
fthompson251 is doing it right .... with speakers AND electronics designed with bi-amplification in mind. If your gear isn't then it's probably a wasted effort
In my case it was worth the effort in a previous system.
I had floorstanders with dual 6-3/4 inch woofers that had their own set of speaker termminals. They had another set of terminals for the 4-1/2 inch midrange and 1 inch tweeter. The internal crossover managed the signal between midrange and tweeter.
With my 80 watt integrated amplifier driving the entire speaker using the supplied brass jumpers, the system ran out of power sooner than I liked- sounded strained, harsh and slightly clipping in the midrange and bass punch reached its peak.
I then used the pre-outs of the integrated to connect to a 150 WPC power amp of the same brand, same gain, and connected it to the woofer terminals.
I connected the speaker terminals of the 80 watt integrated amp to the midrange+tweeter terminals.
Wow what a change. Bass punch and response was incredibly powerful and beyond my needs, never ran out of gas. The midrange never ever sounded strained or clipped, could crank that system as high as I could ever want.
So in that case the original amp was underpowered for the entire speaker at the volume level I preferred. Also since the speakers had a midrange / tweeter setup and had separate jumpers for the woofers, driving them with a separate amp was worthwhile.
I would never find biamping worth the effort with an amplifier just for a tweeter- they consume such a small amount of power. I would also not consider biamping a speaker without dual sets of jumpers and having to bypass the internal crossovers. Opens up a can of worms not worth the effort.
My first "go" at this was many years ago when I got my Genesis V speakers that came with an outboard amp/crossover and used my VAC tube amp on top. My next setup was the internally powered Golden Ear Triton 1.r speakers which also "bi- amp" the bass. I recently got rid of them in favor of the Legacy Audio Focus XD speakers that are "bi -Amp" speakers. They have an internal amp in them. I am now in the process of doing this right and have ordered their external crossover Wavelet II which will go between my VAC pre amp and the speakers as well as my VAC tube amp for mids and highs. The Wavelet will then feed to the speakers internal amp and my external VAC amp simultaneously. So far all have worked out for me, yet this final ventures is yet to be determined although it may most likely be the best of them all.
The issue is half in the speaker, half in the amp. Lots of speakers have challenging loads in the bass, and lots of amps can perform better with better power supplies. Notice this is kind of statistical. I say "lots" and "most." So, while bi-amping may help, it won't always.
When you bi-amp you double the power supply and output transistors, therefore making the amp less sensitive to impedance issues.
Whether or not it helps you is something you should hear for yourself. Generally you should hear better defined bass and transients. If you don't hear that you may as well sell an amp.
IF you have speakers with large woofers, or even subs that are not self-powered
Then, to get more power for the demanding bass frequencies, you bi-amp, size your bass amp for both strong fundamentals/overtones, and enough control to work with the woofer's magnet to stop the woofer
..........................................
IF you have enough power, I do think bi-amp based on ’this cable is better for bass’ frequencies, this ’other cable is best for mids/highs’ is ......................................
If you can afford it, like many other ______, why not, unless you lose something messing about.
..........................................
This made a slight difference, a big difference, a huge difference.
Ten ’upgrades’ all made a slight, big, huge difference: oh my god, gotta be the BEST system you ever heard! Gotta be.
Totally agree with Mike L. He's dead on. Waste of money for most people because seldom is it done correctly. It's expensive to do right and the complexity just isn't worth it in most systems. Upgrade the speakers or amplification for real noticeable improvements instead.
Just my opinion, but the difference between bass drivers and midrange/tweeter drivers FAR exceeds the difference between comparable amplifiers. Except of course for planar-magnetic’s, ESL’s, ribbons, etc. Different drivers made of different materials sound radically different from one another.
Amplifier designers have to make compromises in their amps: bigger output transformers in a tube amp produce better bass than does the same amp with smaller transformers. But smaller transformers produce better high frequencies (smaller ones create less saturation of the transformer core, a consequence of magnetic flux).
Of course the above pertains to only tube amps. But ALL amplifiers are designed with compromises made. Using different amps for different frequencies makes a lot of sense. Everyone with a subwoofer is already doing exactly that.
@knotscott makes a very important point: electronic crossovers provide only "textbook" filters. TF’s are 1st/2nd/3rd/or 4th order, which create slopes of 6/12/18/or 24dB an octave for each driver. The internal passive crossovers in almost all good loudspeakers do more than provide just those slopes; they also contain parts that create compensation filters for the drivers themselves.
To best bi-amp a loudspeaker, the speaker should really be designed with that as a given. Older Maggies (those with parallel crossovers) are perfect candidates for bi-amping, as their crossovers contain no driver compensation networks, only textbook slope filters. The .7 series Maggies contain not parallel but series crossovers, so need to be modified to allow bi-amping.
It’s not a waste. Assuming the passive crossovers in your speakers are good, you still gain the benefit of having separate amps for each channel, which have similar benefits as monoblocks. There’s better physical and electrical separation.
Are you driving the woofers with one side of each amp, and the tweeters with the other? (ie: one stereo 2 channel amp per side)
The benefits should be more about soundstage and separation improvements than any tonal balance changes, but in theory there could be some clarity improvements too. The improvements you may hear are a variable that depends a lot on the rest of the system. What are the amps and the speakers?
There are pros and cons with every choice, and few absolutes. Active crossovers and passive crossovers each have their pros/cons. Most active crossovers can’t address problem areas within the drivers like passive crossovers can. They only act as high, low, or bandpass filters, no notch filters, no shelving networks, no zobels, etc. Hook an active crossover to a driver with issues, and you can have a mess that can't be compensated. A really good passive crossover with high quality parts can sound amazing. Passive crossovers can be more complicated to design well, and many use cheap parts that effects performance.
I’m taking sort of a hybrid horizontal approach . Tube amp monoblocks on the mid and tweeter with passive crossovers, then an active crossover to an integrated solid state amp that just drives the woofers @ ~ 80hz and down (and the active subwoofer).
bi-amping, in my experience, is best with 4 identical channels of amplification and a speaker allowing separate low octave and upper octave inputs. the reason is my priority is always coherency first and foremost. and if the amps for upper and lower octaves are different, unless the speaker is designed with those particular amps in mind, you will always fight for optimal coherency. and in theory that should more control the speaker compared to just two of those same channels, resulting is better performance; the amps are less stressed, the speaker more under control, with a better soundstage, more authority in the lower octaves, and lower noise.
that said, it’s hard to generalize about bi-amping, each case is separate. too many variables. and if you have the budget for 4 channels of amplification, most times investing in better 2 channels of amplification and not bi-amping will equal a higher level of musical result. based on my personal priorites.
OTOH if ultimate dynamics or bass punch is more significant than coherency, then all bets are off and bi amp to your heart’s content. for me though, i’d rather have the very finest first watt and listen happily ever after which would be the better performing 2 channels.
so quality almost always trumps quantity.
one case is tempting, where you have a low wattage SET tube amp, and need something to kick it on the bass, so you find a solid state amp for the bass. maybe your best overall result is with those different amps, but you will always be fighting your bass being solid state and not ’of a piece’ with the SET tubed upper octave amplification. but you might love it anyway. comes down to what you like. no rules.
at the modest level of gear, maybe you have a multi-channel amp you want to use to bi-amp some speakers. in that case, it does make sense to do it. again, hard to generalize.
Bi-amping provides the most improvement when the source signal (most commonly the output of a pre-amp) is divided into bass frequencies for one amp, mids and highs for the other. The dividing is done with an electronic crossover which receives the output of the pre-amp, and has two sets of output jacks, one for each power amp.
The benefit is the result of keeping bass frequencies out of the amplifier that handles the midrange and high frequencies. Bass frequencies use most of the power an amp produces, and cause of a lot of the distortion all circuits create as a byproduct.
If you bi-amp horizontally, you can use one amp particularly good at reproducing bass (solid state), the other an amp good at mids and highs (tube, if you like). Yes, vertical bi-amping does allow you to amply the entire frequency spectrum with the same amplifying circuit, if that’s your priority. But remember, the power supply for both channels of a stereo amplifier is the single transformer most amps contain, so there is a price to be paid by bi-amping vertically.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
